Me in @DailySignal: The #ERA would make “the law intentionally blind to the biological differences between men & women.”
“We’ve already seen the consequences of that ideology in the transgender context: women’s safety, privacy, & opportunities are put in jeopardy,” Stepman warned
“The ERA would expand these consequences by requiring that the law allow all males, not just those who ‘identify’ as women, access to single-sex spaces, competitive events, prisons, and programs.”
Out of all the radical, biology-denying, sex-confusing agendas the left has thus far pushed, the ERA is the most sweeping and potentially most consequential for generations to come, if we don’t halt it here.
One of the few that didn’t just yell stop, but actually stood athwart. Honor her by stopping this atrocity illegitimately resurrected a second time from the dead.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A note on “peak woke”: you’re being superficially placated so you’ll forget the institutional powers that matter.
Yes, they’ll print a defense of JK Rowling in the NYT. We might even manage to establish some limits on minor transition. (These are good things, don’t get me wrong)
But underneath, this ideology is being institutionally entrenched. It is becoming HARDER, not easier, to find a pediatrician who will not put your vulnerable child on the path to transition. It is harder this year than it was last year, & it’ll be harder next year than this year.
Every year, a new rank of cultural revolutionaries are being added to every powerful institution in the US, and every year more boomers retire. What you’re seeing is the high profile defections of Gen X taking a hard right turn. Do not miss the forrest for the trees.
Taking this woman seriously - watching her wield serious power - while she acts like a coquette at a frat party has got to be one of the final signs of the apocalypse
How people can have gone through the last few years of “trust the science” then pull out the exact same argument - trust the experts - here I don’t know. If we can agree on anything it should be that “mental illness” is a hazier, less concrete category than, eg a virus, & yet
Note I didn’t even take the easy way out and point to the politicization of the field (my educated guess is psychologists are even more politically lopsided than psychiatrists)
You will not convince me that paying to talk to a therapist instead of a friend about your innermost thoughts and sorrows is wholly dissimilar from paying a hooker to perform a facsimile of that kind of intimacy
That both might be marginally better than being wholly alone, I might be convinced, but never that they fully scratch the itch they faint at
This is of a piece with our legal regime in the US and is almost certainly making its way here. You have no right to object as your children are sterilized, why would you have a right to object when they choose to die?
Direction this is going will be a settlement w/ disabled advocates (an internal leftist dispute). There will be additional barriers placed to euthanasia for the “vulnerable groups” eg BIPOCLGBTQQIAaaaaa. Straight white male applications to eliminate oneself will sail on through.
People worrying about this being mean are being ju-jitsued. Dylan’s nonsense claims (or delusions) are being ruthlessly enforced as true by every institution. They are in the public square & must be refuted. You can’t make public arguments & claim private protection from rebuttal
Similar concept is @benshapiro’s distinction between private request from a friend and public demands for pronouns etc. You cannot agree to this lopsided playing field whereby these lies have public consequences but allow those advancing them to claim privacy.
The truths being suppressed are not only about reality and biology, but also beauty. Vulnerable teens soak up the message presented by Dylan et al in no small part because *they are presented as beautiful*.